A Blog About Stock Photography. John specializes in shooting stock photos including a mix of funny animal pictures with anthropomorphized pets (including dogs, cats, cows, elephants, monkeys and more), and concept stock photos for business and consumer communications. John's site includes interviews with photographers and leaders in the stock photo community as well as numerous articles on photography, digital imaging, and the stock photo business.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Is Stock Photography Dead?

A woman looks down a long road, under storm clouds and at clearing skies over a sunrise, towards better times and success in a stock photo that could well represent the stock photography industry.

Is Stock Photography Dead?

The death knell for stock photography is ringing loudly
everywhere one turns, but is stock photography really dead… or dying? I don’t
think so. Sure, the stock photography business is in transition with a lot of
challenges for those attempting to make a living at it, but there are some good
developments as well. With the advent of microstock, and the proliferation of
imagery, prices have plummeted, but recently there has been some evidence of
increasing prices for curated collections. Too, there are still plenty of
examples of high prices being paid for stock photos. Agencies are springing up
that are paying the content creators a larger percentage of the licensing fees
as well. Finally, there are some more photography-friendly agencies coming
along that are offering more guidance and support for photographers.

Sales That Pay The Bills

In my own experience I continue to see substantial sales
from such venerable agencies as Getty and Corbis and some excellent sales from
Blend Images as well. Just last month I had a $17,000.00 (gross) sale from
Getty, a $6,000.00 sale and several sales in the $1,000.00 range, not to
mention a plethora of lower priced sales. Last night I had a direct sale
through Blend Images for $1308.00, and the week before I had a Blend Images
sale for $3500.00 and another one for $1223.00. Two weeks ago a friend of mine
had a $40,000.00 Blend sale! Those really big sales are kind of like hitting
the lottery and while they certainly are fun, it is the hundreds of smaller repeat
sales that pay the bills. There are still plenty of clients willing to pay a
decent amount for the right image.

Photographer Friendly Agencies

Also good news for photographers is the trend of new
photographer-friendly agencies. Blend (disclaimer…I am a part owner of Blend),
for example, offers a ton of help for photographers from intimate art direction
to market research to royalty rates to 50%. A big plus for Blend is the wide
distribution they offer ranging from Getty & Corbis to Masterfile, SuperStock,
Gallery Stock and many others. Gallery stock has caught my eye because of the
consistently high sales they make for me (through Blend Images). Stocksy is
another interesting agency that has a co-op approach, a high royalty rate,
higher prices than microstock, and is off to a fast start.

Making A Living With Stock Photography

Don’t get me wrong, making a living with stock photography
isn’t easy, but making a living, making a very good living, and having a
wonderful lifestyle as part of the bargain is still possible. Success requires
knowing what will sell, consistent and high-level production, and choosing the
right distribution. Oh yeah, and a boat load of perseverance! ­

16 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Very nice written John! and you're right, its far from dead! all this doom/gloom is just a flash in the pan. I myself in 2104 had countless RM and RF sales, four of them were each one around five-figures.You yourself stand way out from the crowd and thats the secret, you have to niche yourself, specialize.All this talk about variety, shooting everything in site, etc is Micro thinking and in the long run its suicide.The old adage, specialize still prevail.

John: I have been with Superstock with a few thousand images.....waste of time--I left. Getty Images (and Corbis to a lesser extend) are the only companies to do business with as a stock photographer. You toot Blend only because you are a business partner (so its totally biased). I don't recommend photographers join Blend Images. They should do all they can to get a contract direct with Getty. I submit my work to Getty only. They do the best for me and are the leaders in stock imagery. They do the best for you too, I am sure. Please dont tell people to waste their time with small stock companies....ive been there, done that--they are a complete waste of time.

Getty is still the big dog, if you will, but I believe it is a mistake to look at things in such a black and white way. I personally know one photographer who is doing much better at Stocksy than at Getty, and has been shooting for Getty for over a decade. I know another who is doing better with their work on micro sites than at Getty!

True, I am a Blend owner and biased, but Blend gets your work, both RF and RM onto Getty, AND Corbis, AND SuperStock (where, by the way, I recently had a multi-thousand dollar sale) and a ton of other sites. I make more by having my images spread out over Getty and the other sites than I would on Getty alone.

The best course of action for a stock shooter also depends on the type of work they produce.

Finally, with the constant turmoil in the industry there is something to be said for diversity. Adobe just bought Fotolia...and might make them a go to place for a ton of iCloud users....and I have images in Fotolia thanks to Blend....

Each of us needs to educate ourselves about the market and make smart personal decisions about how to proceed.

John: You are a unique stock photographer. You have amazing PS skills. There are not many like you. Yes, I am tooting your horn. So, you can make the big sales on Superstock occasionally, but most of us would not do well there. I sure did not with a few thousand images. Glad I left. The problem with Blend is that they act like a broker to photographers and take a "cut" of sales. Sure, they get your images to different agencies, but also take a significant cut. Its best for stock photographers to get contracts direct with the most successful stock agencies such as Getty and Corbis. You've peaked my curiosity about Stocksy, I just dont know much about them.

I personally know quite a few photographers being with Stocksy and Offset and I am talking quite well known names here.No! they are not making much money. It seems its a matter of just being with them rather then making money.

Blend is a distributor and after what I have heard they are making a good job out of it.

I agree that being solely with SuperStock is not a good idea...my point was that your images get more visibility and that more than makes up for the portion of the fees that Blend takes. Also, Blend is getting more and more direct sales which can result in the photographer getting five times more in fees than they would with a Getty sale! Again, each photographer needs to look at all the factors carefully before making a decision upon where to place imagery.

Another advantage with having images on Blend is that you can see which sub distributors (Getty, Gallery Stock, Fotolia and so forth) are bringing in the best sales.

BTW, while the Photoshop skills are essential to what I do I still believe that the photography skills are more important and more challenging!

Interesting that you know photographers who are NOT making money at Stocksy and Offset. Guess, like everything else, it works for some and not for others. Probably depends on what they are shooting....

Well John you sound a bit like "Oh not making money"Sure there are some making money but then again if you launch an agency 2014, telling buyers its different, this and that only to find the same old cliches, instagram, analog, cross-processing that one saw back in the 90s ( you must remember). So the lifestyle shooters have a good time.

Using our names?? then one would have to be nice all the time or else might find an account closed. hehe!

Are you aware that Getty pays you fees often by extorting small businesses who have unwittingly used one of your pieces that has been significantly edited?

I agree that photographers should be able to earn a living from their work...but with the internet the way it is today it can be next to impossible to find the person responsible for a work that has been cropped and edited.

Everyday I see people stealing my images. Some claim credit for them, some even sell them! Many are harmless, but I still feel violated when people use my work, work that I put time and money into, without my permission. Stolen property is stolen property. If someone can't find the owner of an image they should NOT use it...there are plenty of images that they can find under creative commons, or heaven forbid, pay for!

Very nice piece. This is and industry that is very psyched up, depending on the quality and originality it may or may not work for you. Which means you always have to be relevant and different in a way that captures a different niche